aegis_list_rules

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare the safe read profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description's job is to add context beyond that. It does: unloadable files surface with an _error marker rather than failing, and stale_rules are defined relative to the last aegis sync. It does not disclose pagination or size limits, but for a local read this is solid added context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the tool's action and then unpacks the three output keys in matching order. It is dense with nested parentheticals, but nearly every clause carries information an agent needs to interpret the response.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does: it defines all three top-level keys and the per-rule fields (type, hypothesis, ledger fitness). It omits ordering, pagination and response size, which keeps it short of a 5 for a tool with no output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with both enum parameters fully described in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description never mentions the view projection or rule_type filter, so it adds nothing to parameter understanding; the schema does all the work.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific verb and resource ('list the governance rules') and immediately specifies the exact response shape ({rules, stale_rules, ignored}) with what each key contains. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like aegis_create_rule or aegis_scan, which mutate or analyze rather than enumerate rules.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the verb and the described output (inspect rules, find stale ones, spot ignored markdown), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when a filter is preferable to a full listing, and no routing to or away from any sibling tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.